Shipp is a good journalist. He is simply working within the confines of his career at WFAA. He cannot piss off established authorities in the city without the say so of another equally powerful authority (he can only act as a courier between them in conflicts). WFAA depends on the city and its good will. Thus, he is taking the same strategy as those other authorities -- attack the drivers and point out their weaknesses (low-life criminals they be). The real economics of the problem are left unmentioned, because they would be like nitroglycerin in a blender for the established authorities. They cannot tell you that Uber is being attacked (through the drivers) at airports because they are encroaching on revenues like parking and established ground transportation. This would run him afoul of the authorities. He cannot tell you Uber is tricking unknowledgeable civilians (without transportation experience) into providing transportation at less than cost, which is why they are killing the other revenue sources. He can't do this because Uber has good lawyers. He can't tell you that Uber is depending on people giving the equity in vehicles away for free, and profiting from it, when the equity is usually collateral on a bank loan (although he slightly alluded to it, but squarely placed the blame for this complicated notion on the common driver -- it was drivers defrauding the banks -- not Uber). We are the targets for everything, because we are a silent, fragmented and unpowerful group. Driving Miss Daisy. Man up! There must be something at the end of the day! It all depends on when they are able to stop the bleed from the equity in the loans (which I don't know when or how). That is where the revenue is coming from to kill the established ground transportation industries. When it stops, and the drivers have to either pay the real cost of operating an Uber vehicle full time ($250/week, plus), or quit, then prices for rides will have to inch up toward that cost. Else, the queue will permanently be "You are next in line."